Effective for the November/December 2011 contest, intentionally awful maps are now grounds for entry rejection. This does not apply to stages that are just bad; only levels where the author is deliberately trying to make a bad stage are affected by this change. What this means for you is that your joke maps need to actually have a little thought put into them for how they play. It's totally okay to have intentionally ugly visuals or use bad music as a joke. It is not okay to have a stage that plays bad on purpose.

Effective for the January/February 2012 contest, the circuit division is discontinued. The November/December 2011 contest will contain the last circuit division in the OLDC. Circuit is an unbalanced game mode that nobody can really agree on what good levels are, so it really isn't a good choice of gametype for what is intended to be a feedback mechanism for improvement of level design skill.

I am not sure if getting rid of circuit in contest wads is such a great idea. There have been some fun maps that came from the contest, even some that are in the 2.0.6 IWADs.

Although I do believe circut is unbalanced, it is mainly because the host will win most of the time from lack of c-lag. I am not sure that the differencing opinions is a good enough reason. There are differencing opinions on how maps should work on ANY gametype. Think of how many people love or hate nimbus ruins.

__________________
If you see any people named "Torgo" outside of SRB2, it isn't me. I also go by "TorgoRandomNumbers"

I'm not really talking about the difference in opinion on specific maps as much as I'm referencing the lack of any sort of consensus on what even constitutes a bad circuit map, much less a good one. If you ask 20 people what they want in a circuit map, they will provide 20 different, frequently conflicting answers. It's basically impossible to improve your stage when the very stage feature that earned you high marks from one voter caused you to get low marks from another.

In contrast, while there are certainly controversial maps in our other gametypes that produce conflicting feedback (Nimbus Ruins being a great example), generally the feedback you get is pretty consistent. Despite the difference in taste, it's possible to obtain a good amount of proper feedback because you get a lot of different but generally not diametrically opposed opinions. Even if you do end up with a controversial stage, it's often easy to nail down exactly what feature of your stage half of the audience likes and the other half dislikes, such as the ease of falling to your death in Nimbus Ruins. People are much more able to isolate exactly what causes them to like or dislike a stage in match and CTF, while in circuit the answer frequently is "I don't know why, but in my gut I really like/dislike this". While that's perfectly valid feedback, it's not helpful for the purposes of improving level design skill. Even worse, it's often actually feedback on the circuit gametype and not the stage itself, regardless of whether the voter thinks he's being objective or not. The entirety of this argument is essentially distilled perfectly in this thread: http://mb.srb2.org/showthread.php?t=36224

Finally, I assume this is obvious, but I'd like to start to phase circuit out as a serious gametype. Match and capture the flag are both deep, compelling gametypes with tons of player interaction and complicated decisions to make. Circuit, at the end of the day, involves thokking a lot. This can be an amusing diversion, but it simply has no depth and no matter how much you dress it up with pretty stages and complicated sector layout, it boils down to time attack with lag, and at that point we might as well encourage single player stage design instead, as that has a lot more gameplay involved than just time attack.

Re: Intentionally awful maps. I wholeheartedly approve of this decision, because it's been thoroughly established that 95% of the users SRB2 attracts have no clue how to be funny. However, I do hope this does not become grounds for disqualifying would-be controversial maps (see: Nimbus Ruins) strictly due to someone's bias. I've always considered the contest less of, gasp, a contest and more of a forum to post your work with the safe knowledge that it will get played by a lot of people. If we start axing controversial maps before they have a chance to get wildly differing opinions, then I think a vital part of the OLDC will be lost.

Next, the Imminent Discontinuation Of Circuit and Why I Think It's A Bad Idea:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystic

If you ask 20 people what they want in a circuit map, they will provide 20 different, frequently conflicting answers.

Congratulations. You have just discovered the age-old proverb: fans are clueless and don't know what they want.

While it's true that what goes into making a good Match or CTF stage is much more formulaic, it's also always a partial crapshoot -- something in the gut of the map maker that he or she thinks will work for the gametype. Unwritten, or maybe unwritable rules, if you will. Circuit is nothing but a more extreme example of this. A lot less hard science goes into making a good Race map than a Match map, but this is not inherently bad. Hell, I would argue the same thing goes for Single Player levels, as well. You can try to distill what makes Egg Rock 2 so awesome, and you might come up with several valid points, but at the end of the day what caused the stage to make the leap from "great" to "embodiment of Christ" is simply the natural talent Nev3r has in making a flowing, well architected experience. That's something you can't break down into bullet points. And that is not a bad thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystic

In contrast, while there are certainly controversial maps in our other gametypes that produce conflicting feedback (Nimbus Ruins being a great example), generally the feedback you get is pretty consistent.

The problem with having more consistent feedback is that by nature it's also going to be a lot more polarizing. While in the case of a Circuit map you may very well get 20 drastically different opinions, including one person loving your map due to a certain aspect and another hating the map due to the exact same thing, in general this is somewhat attenuated by the 18 other opinions, while in Nimbus Ruins, like you exemplified, you pretty much either love it due to the giant gaping hole, or you hate it for the exact same reason. This creates a rift between players where 50% love the map and 50% hate it (though in the present case the values are quite likely skewed to one end) while in a controversial Circuit map, due to the hazier feedback, you get this overlap where people which strongly dislike a particular aspect of the map end up liking it anyway because of that certain something else which can't easily be put into words.

So essentially what I'm saying is that yes, you're right. People end up praising Circuit maps where there are glaring flaws and reject others simply due to something rather trivial. It's not as easy to put the author on the right track as it is for Match or CTF, it may very well be impossible. But I say that's the way the game works. Which brings me to my final point:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystic

Finally, I assume this is obvious, but I'd like to start to phase circuit out as a serious gametype. Match and capture the flag are both deep, compelling gametypes with tons of player interaction and complicated decisions to make. Circuit, at the end of the day, involves thokking a lot. This can be an amusing diversion, but it simply has no depth and no matter how much you dress it up with pretty stages and complicated sector layout, it boils down to time attack with lag, and at that point we might as well encourage single player stage design instead, as that has a lot more gameplay involved than just time attack.

First of all, I always considered Circuit to be more of a bite-sized Single Player. The stages are smaller and more linear due to the lack of abundant alternate paths, so it's easier for a newcomer to jump in and reach a level of proficiency close or equal to that of long-time players. In that respect I don't think it's the gametype's fault that a lot of the stages produced boil down to mere thokfests -- personally I yearn for more Thunder Factory and less Frozen Night.

Next, Match is a deep, strategic gametype while Circuit has no depth and boils down to multiplayer time attack. Oh no! Wait, why is this a bad thing?

If there's one thing that attracts me to the Circuit gametype is the very fact that it has very little depth to it. In order to play a good game of Match, you need to a) round up a decent number of players (8 is recommended, 6 at the very minimum) and b) ensure that they're both experienced in first-person shooters with WASD and mouselook control AND the specifics of SRB2 Match's strategic gameplay. The game isn't fun if nobody hits you, and it's also no fun if nobody dodges your shots. With Circuit, on the other hand, all the player really needs to know is the layout of the levels and how to handle the player character, both of which are already assumed for Match as well. This leads to Circuit being a much easier game to set up, because it is very inviting to anyone strolling around the Master Server and therefore easily amasses lots of people with varied skill levels, which can then make the shift to Match or CTF after a consistent group of players has been established. There's a reason I always, always start a netgame with Circuit.

Might want to change that to "Entries that are unplayable or intentionally bad may be rejected." just so it's clear that unintentionally unplayable maps are also rejected while unintentionally bad maps are not. It's possible to interpret this sentence as "Entries that are intentionally bad or intentionally unplayable may be rejected."

Might want to change that to "Entries that are unplayable or intentionally bad may be rejected." just so it's clear that unintentionally unplayable maps are also rejected while unintentionally bad maps are not. It's possible to interpret this sentence as "Entries that are intentionally bad or intentionally unplayable may be rejected."

If you're going to go to this step, you better define what unplayable means. Does it mean that it won't open in SRB2 and/or doesn't work in it's intended gametype? Or does it mean that it is ridiculously hard to grasp or play? I've seen the two confused a lot here in the OLDC.

__________________
a dome structure? something that could be filled with diatomaceous earth?

Might want to change that to "Entries that are unplayable or intentionally bad may be rejected." just so it's clear that unintentionally unplayable maps are also rejected while unintentionally bad maps are not. It's possible to interpret this sentence as "Entries that are intentionally bad or intentionally unplayable may be rejected."

And that possible interpretation is exactly what he said. He's banning intentionally unplayable maps. He never once said anything about banning unintentionally unplayable maps.

One more thing: How do you tell if a map is intentionally bad, Mystic? Canyon CTF was not intentionally bad, yet, many people thought that. There needs to be some sort of concrete standard, or I can see some people getting upset when their hard work is rejected. I mean, you can obviously tell that "obnoioxies mym litltle pnony refenrence znone" was intentional, but that's not the case with everything.

__________________
a dome structure? something that could be filled with diatomaceous earth?

However, I do hope this does not become grounds for disqualifying would-be controversial maps (see: Nimbus Ruins) strictly due to someone's bias. I've always considered the contest less of, gasp, a contest and more of a forum to post your work with the safe knowledge that it will get played by a lot of people. If we start axing controversial maps before they have a chance to get wildly differing opinions, then I think a vital part of the OLDC will be lost.

The ONLY maps that will be rejected on this basis are maps where the author clearly made a bad stage deliberately. The perfect example is RedEnchilada's entry for circuit this contest. It has no merit, and he knows it. He made no attempt to make a good stage and is just making a shitty stage for the lulz. That kind of thing is not acceptable. Any stage where the author made any good faith attempt to try to make the stage fun will not be rejected on these grounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo Chaotikal

While it's true that what goes into making a good Match or CTF stage is much more formulaic, it's also always a partial crapshoot -- something in the gut of the map maker that he or she thinks will work for the gametype. Unwritten, or maybe unwritable rules, if you will. Circuit is nothing but a more extreme example of this. A lot less hard science goes into making a good Race map than a Match map, but this is not inherently bad.

The major difference here is that nobody can agree on what a good circuit map is. There are many match and CTF maps with overwhelmingly positive opinions. There are almost no circuit maps with that kind of feedback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo Chaotikal

Hell, I would argue the same thing goes for Single Player levels, as well. You can try to distill what makes Egg Rock 2 so awesome, and you might come up with several valid points, but at the end of the day what caused the stage to make the leap from "great" to "embodiment of Christ" is simply the natural talent Nev3r has in making a flowing, well architected experience. That's something you can't break down into bullet points. And that is not a bad thing.

While I think ERZ2 is most definitely more entertaining than the sum of its parts, I can most definitely break down why ERZ2 is fun. It mostly has to do with clever gimmick design and engaging the player in interesting ways. If you want a long, detailed explanation, I'd gladly give it to you if requested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo Chaotikal

So essentially what I'm saying is that yes, you're right. People end up praising Circuit maps where there are glaring flaws and reject others simply due to something rather trivial. It's not as easy to put the author on the right track as it is for Match or CTF, it may very well be impossible. But I say that's the way the game works.

I read this to say "circuit is a flawed gametype, because that's the way the game works". If you want to have fun playing a flawed gametype or creating content for it, feel free, but I don't want to continue to encourage new level designers to consider the gametype for their work. I would rather encourage newer level designers to try their hand at a better gametype.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo Chaotikal

First of all, I always considered Circuit to be more of a bite-sized Single Player. The stages are smaller and more linear due to the lack of abundant alternate paths, so it's easier for a newcomer to jump in and reach a level of proficiency close or equal to that of long-time players. In that respect I don't think it's the gametype's fault that a lot of the stages produced boil down to mere thokfests -- personally I yearn for more Thunder Factory and less Frozen Night.

Personally I consider circuit to be time attack with latency and without any depth. Why not just make a single player stage and play time attack on it? With time attack there are all sorts of interesting considerations to make on which route is the best and potential sequence breaking to go along with the gameplay of thokking like a madman. There is of course only one optimal choice in time attack, but figuring out what that choice is can occasionally be quite compelling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo Chaotikal

Next, Match is a deep, strategic gametype while Circuit has no depth and boils down to multiplayer time attack. Oh no! Wait, why is this a bad thing?

If there's one thing that attracts me to the Circuit gametype is the very fact that it has very little depth to it. In order to play a good game of Match, you need to a) round up a decent number of players (8 is recommended, 6 at the very minimum) and b) ensure that they're both experienced in first-person shooters with WASD and mouselook control AND the specifics of SRB2 Match's strategic gameplay. The game isn't fun if nobody hits you, and it's also no fun if nobody dodges your shots. With Circuit, on the other hand, all the player really needs to know is the layout of the levels and how to handle the player character, both of which are already assumed for Match as well. This leads to Circuit being a much easier game to set up, because it is very inviting to anyone strolling around the Master Server and therefore easily amasses lots of people with varied skill levels, which can then make the shift to Match or CTF after a consistent group of players has been established. There's a reason I always, always start a netgame with Circuit.

I think you're using depth and complexity as meaning the same thing, whereas I am not. Depth is how many relevant choices the player gets to make in gameplay. Complexity is how many rules the player has to understand to fully appreciate the gameplay. These are not necessarily the same thing. I'll use four games to illustrate my point:

The Zelda franchise is both deep and complex. There are tons of decisions to make and a massive amount of rules the player needs to understand about the gameplay structure. By the end of the game the player is managing a massive inventory while making complicated decisions to solve complicated problems.

Tetris is deep and simple. There are a ton of decisions to make, but the rules of the game are incredibly easy to understand. Nobody is going to have any problems figuring out what's going on, but the game remains very interesting because despite the simple ruleset, there are tons of options of how to approach your problem.

The Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest franchises (and many other JRPGs) are shallow and complex. While there are a massive amount of rules the player needs to understand in order for their party to have optimal statistics, in actual practice there aren't a whole lot of choices in the gameplay itself. You just keep attacking with your strongest attacks, healing as necessary, until whatever you're fighting dies.

Tic-Tac-Toe is both shallow and simple. There are few decisions to make and very simple rules. In such situations, the game quickly stagnates into repetitive game states because the lack of choices prevent any variety from entering the gameplay, and there isn't the complexity of the rules to hide this behind an RPG statistics system.

Now, with those examples, let's apply this to SRB2. SRB2 has two layers of rules complexity, as you've pointed out above. Our single player game has one set of mechanics, while out match weapon system adds an extra layer of complexity on top of that. More complicated rules, as mentioned earlier, create a longer learning curve before the player can fully comprehend what's going on and can be a barrier to entry for newer players. Now let's look at our gametypes in particular:

Single player mode is deep and relatively simple (Obviously, not even close to as simple as Tetris, but compared to the rest of our modes, it's by far the easiest to understand). While the physics ramifications of the tools the player are given are complicated, the rules themselves are relatively easy to understand. The player has a lot of decisions in how to go about approaching their goal, though, with non-linear stage design, multiple character abilities, and lots of stage-specific mechanics to play with.

Match mode is deep and complicated. All of the gameplay rules from single player carry over into match, while also adding a weapon and ammo system. The gameplay itself provides a ton of choices to the player as well, because even though the player's movement options are slightly restrictive compared to single player, the complexity of using the right weapon for the situation adds more than enough to make up for it.

Capture the flag mode is deep and even more complicated than match. The addition of teams, team rings, and all the CTF mechanics adds even more complexity. CTF provides and absolutely massive amount of depth because of all the various methods of accomplishing your goal, as the addition of an objective other than just attacking other players reintroduces a lot of the movement tricks from single player that aren't viable in match.

Finally, circuit mode is shallow and simple. The gameplay rules are the same as single player, with the exception of time being the most important thing. However, because of the emphasis on speed, there are absolutely no choices for the player to make. All of the decisions to make in single player are thrown out of the window because the player is encouraged to go as fast as possible. You play as Sonic, take a linear path, and whoever executes thokking the best wins. Thus, all the games of circuit end up feeling the same, like Tic-Tac-Toe once you figure out how to play optimally. While in circuit it's possible to mess up on reflex while it isn't possible in TTT, the decision tree is completely non-existent.

This is why I say circuit is a subpar gametype. Each game ends up working out exactly the same way, and while it can be an amusing diversion for a small period of time, it will quickly become stale once the players in the game figure out the stage layout because nobody gets to make any decisions. There are no cool sequence breaks like in time attack, no stage exploration and variety of character abilities like in single player, and no player interaction like in match and capture the flag. Every game is exactly the same, leading to the winner being determined by latency or someone making a stupid mistake while thokking.

So, I trust many of us will be making circuit levels with a little effort put into them now to overwhelm the final OLDC that allows circuit maps with the very gametype that will soon be removed from the OLDC?

I don't know about you all but removing circuit levels in the OLDC can be a good or bad idea. However you look at it. By removing circuit maps. We wont have much to play but Match and CTF. And most players I know never feels up for a good old coop. But I do see your point for the votes and rating for the circuit levels. Every time i join a OLDC server. There always giving high rating for such a nice level while someone don't like a part and will rate it lower for his/her own opinions.

I just truly think this is a bad idea for removing the circuit division.

And I love racing a lot. And by removing the circuit division. All I got my hope now is match.

Topic : Race
Yes, I agree on this point that the victory in Race is a matter of chance accompanied by a minimum of experience, of course. Experience means know the levels and the rules of thok, and the chance is ... to do not to break his head against a wall because of the bad luck, as you say so.

Now, you consider that Race = Coop. Yes, it's your own opinion, but I also like to give my version.
The SRB2 Wiki (Level Design 101) has two different parts for race and Coop ! Both game modes have different rules of construction. During the race, some parts must be straight and tall, usually with few obstacles, however in Coop ... we find slow teleporters (ERZ2), lasers ... barriers, and especially : enemies !
There are many specific rules for Race to gain speed easily OR even with some difficulties !
And also a very important thing : except in this aerial level so fresh called Heaven Pass, where Tails can compete, I see no chance that a thok-thok-thok Sonic can not win against a Knuckles or Tails.
In other words, a victory for Co-op, which is a basic game mode (exploration, take pleasure in killing small crawlas, etc..) receives S, T and K, whilst the victory in Race only receives the most Sonic of you.

To return to the basic race topic ...

Quote:

Mystic :
"Circuit is an unbalanced game mode that nobody can really agree on what good levels are, so it really isn't a good choice of gametype for what is intended to be a feedback mechanism for improvement of level design skill."

Well, I refer to what I said earlier, Race has its own rules of construction, so my opinion is that it is entirely possible to designate a good or bad race. Lots of people already gave some notices and tips to race map makers, right ?

There is a difference between Race and 1-P / Coop.
And, whatever the work, create levels can only enhance the level design skills.
So yeah, I, personally, I would have liked to keep Race, I do not consider it like Coop, it's really too bad to don't have access to this mode soon. I'm sure some players like this gameplay (especially plumber-on-karts drift fans)

Topic : "For the lulz" levels
Players who make small jokes like create intergalactic casinos riddled with holes invisible in the wall ... it depends if the joke is to the chocolate or to the strawberry. If this is a unplayable level joke (and to don't recreate discussion on this : unplayable, HERE, means "deceptive textures, awful gameplay, unpredictable traps etc ...." I do not speak about the file loading.) If this is a level unplayable joke, so I'm FOR the deletion of those psychedelic areas. I do not really fun type "setlives 99" in my console ...
Now, if a joke is quite playable, but low quality (such as ... a massive platform in space that looks like a kitten in a body composed of toast where matches can be played, and so, where the Rail ring can affect anyone on the level) should be accepted. I know it's a joke, but I still consider it as "level" because I can play inside happily with other players. Then, the only downside, of course, is the quality ...a joke level, which is still easily playable, get a bad grade according to the Level Design... But it's a playable level. It's according to "joke" sense.
I also limit myself to mention this piece of Mystic summarizing what I mean :
"It's totally okay to have intentionally ugly visuals or use bad music as a joke. It is not okay to have a stage that plays bad on purpose."

Now, you have to recognize if a psychedelic level is a joke, or if a level is just supposed to be serious, but very difficult. Yes, like Neo said, like Nimbus Ruins, why not. But I think the textures are going to say for themselves whether the level is a joke or not, so I'm not too worried about it !

__________________
Bind out of the "life"
Curiosity : It's alright, go on, you'll never know anything if you don't try

First of all, let me state that Single Player =/= Coop. It seems to be a common misconception among some users - especially those who aren't native English speakers - that Coop is the name of the gametype that the main levels like GFZ, ACZ, ERZ and whatnot are played in. That's not the case. These levels are played in Single Player mode, the name of the gametype is literally "Single Player". Coop is just a variation of that gametype meant for netplay. In other words, levels aren't made for Coop, they're made for Single Player, so that's the gametype we should be discussing here.

With that in mind, nobody said that Single Player and Race are identical - far from it. The closest anybody came to it was when Neo called Race "bite-sized Single Player". What he means is that Race takes the design rules for Single Player stages and simplifies them to a high degree. Multiple paths, enemies and complex or time-consuming obstacles for example are thrown out for maximum straightforwardness. So, in essence, Race isn't a different gametype with its own rules, it's rather a reduction and simplification of Single Player. Which of course poses the question: Why make a simplified Single Player stage when you can make a real one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Internet Explorer

The SRB2 Wiki (Level Design 101) has two different parts for race and Coop ! Both game modes have different rules of construction. During the race, some parts must be straight and tall, usually with few obstacles, however in Coop ... we find slow teleporters (ERZ2), lasers ... barriers, and especially : enemies !
There are many specific rules for Race to gain speed easily OR even with some difficulties !

There, you said it yourself: Race isn't different from Single Player, it's less than Single Player. All the examples you named for Race (few obstacles, straight path) are things you can find in Single Player too. But your examples for Single Player are things you would never see in Race.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Internet Explorer

And also a very important thing : except in this aerial level so fresh called Heaven Pass, where Tails can compete, I see no chance that a thok-thok-thok Sonic can not win against a Knuckles or Tails.
In other words, a victory for Co-op, which is a basic game mode (exploration, take pleasure in killing small crawlas, etc..) receives S, T and K, whilst the victory in Race only receives the most Sonic of you.

Again, this means that Race reduces the complexity of Single Player by reducing the character choices. Not a new rule, just a simplification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Internet Explorer

Lots of people already gave some notices and tips to race map makers, right ?

Yes, but not only were those tips far from exhaustive, there are also a lot of differing opinions floating around about Race. For example, some consider tight corners a good thing because it requires skill to pass them while others think they break the flow. In general, the question of how many obstacles are okay for Race remains unsolved. I have yet to see a Race level that wasn't either called a thokfest by some and/or too restrictive and cramped by others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Internet Explorer

So yeah, I, personally, I would have liked to keep Race, I do not consider it like Coop, it's really too bad to don't have access to this mode soon. I'm sure some players like this gameplay (especially plumber-on-karts drift fans)

Don't worry, the gametype will still be in SRB2.

Regarding the "for the lulz" levels as you called them, I think you misunderstood something: We're not talking about joke maps. We're talking about maps that are bad on purpose. This doesn't happen very often; in fact "obnoioxies mym litltle pnony refenrence znone" might be the only such level that was in the OLDC in the last two years.

Circuit Mode has been worked on far less then any other gametype, which explains why it falls short when compared to the other three. So I'm going to post some suggestions to make it feel less like a "watered down singleplayer"

- Add weapon rings

Easiest way to add more depth to Circuit mode. Restrict the player to holding only one weapon panel, and keep ammo to a minimum so that more choices would be made.

- Rayman Arena styled traps

For those who haven't played it, there were switches that would close shortcuts and slow down the leading player so he/she would have to take a longer route, giving the other players falling behind a chance to catch up. You could easily do this with gates that you run through (Using linedef executers) instead of switches to close up the shortest path to prevent Sonic from dominating. Think of that switch in Azure lake Zone in Sonic 3 to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about.

-Change Circuit maps to Sprint type maps

Just design Circuit mode with a start and finish, and remove the whole lap system. The 4 lap design already limits what you can do to balance the three characters, and some of the single-player maps beat out quite a few Circuit maps when it comes to balance anyway.

Just plain removing it from the OLDC isn't going to solve anything. It's the only time we ever got any interesting Circuit maps in the first place